Sunday 22nd
January, 2017 - Motivating and De-Motivating Workers
I recently came
across a situation where a manager (actually, a management team, but it is
easier to refer to the singular) had set an "ambitious" goal for his
division's financial performance, and, upon it becoming clear that the division
would not reach that "ambitious" goal, gave a speech nobly calling
for his workers to make extra efforts and sacrifices to achieve his
"ambitious" target, almost as if this was a wartime situation and the
workers were sacrificing for the sake of defending freedom - rather than being
about his KPIs and performance bonus.
To be clear: the
division was already profitable, so this was NOT a situation where the workers’
jobs were on the line.
Was the manager being
a motivator?
No.
There is a valid -
or, at least, defensible - argument that setting goals and stretching oneself
to achieve them can be good for people [http://www.livestrong.com/article/217375-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-goal-setting/],
but, in this instance:
- the manager failed to recognise that the goal had been set by him, was predicated on issues that mattered to him, and that workers would recognise that - just as they can recognise when managers are genuine [https://theconversation.com/note-to-bosses-workers-perform-better-if-you-give-to-charity-35873];
- setting unrealistic goals violates the principles that go with good goal setting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMART_criteria&oldid=757188056];
- what motivates workers are issues such as respect [https://theconversation.com/happy-people-work-harder-especially-if-they-get-chocolate-24646, https://theconversation.com/why-take-a-stick-to-public-service-productivity-when-a-carrot-works-18546], being including being involved in goal setting [http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-goal-setting-1881.html, https://theconversation.com/to-solve-britains-productivity-puzzle-try-asking-the-workers-43028], and matters that they find challenging (e.g., new or better uses of work skills) - not being expected to work more unpaid overtime;
- workers are more than just part of company: they have a life outside work, and increasing unpaid overtime interferes with that - whereas there is at least some evidence (perhaps all the way back to the campaign for the eight hour working day) that time away from work can be refreshing and actually increase productivity [https://theconversation.com/how-swedish-literature-reflects-the-benefits-of-a-shorter-working-day-68114, https://theconversation.com/grappling-with-the-time-bomb-of-australias-work-rest-and-play-5330].
How different that
situation would have been if, for instance:
- the original goal setting had included workers -some of whom were more experienced with changes in economic cycles than the manager;
- the manager had engaged with workers and shown a genuine interest in their lives - which is, perhaps, a subtle way of reminding people why they work, and of the benefits that come from increased profitability that is shared with workers.
Finally, I came across
an interesting article arguing that nepotism /cronyism is "discrimination
by stealth", which I thought I would share - with an apology, as it is a
LinkedIn article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nepotismcronyism-aka-jobs-mates-discrimination-stealth-ruzbacky?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like.
WLNGRHDMT
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram and Mastodon.
Finally, remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, and to mind our Mӕgan.
